The requirement of novelty strives to make certain and guarantee that a grant of patent would not be not issued if the invention is already known by the public or the invention is already possessed by the public. In Synthon BV v SmithKline Beecham the subject matter that the court was to determine was whether a prior disclosure swashed the requirement of Novelty of an invention the subject of later application.[ ] The facts of the case is this, using the Patent cooperation Treaty on June 10, 1997 an application for Patent was filed. A broad class of Sulphonic acid salts was claimed, as well as paroxetine methansulfonate, or PMS, as well as the condition referred to how to make it in crystalline form.[ ] In 1999, prior to the time when …show more content…
1). that what was in the SKB patent was disclosed in their previous application. 2). that there was sufficient disclosure that will enable a skilled person to carry out the invention. Synthon’s case was established on an anomaly in respect of the IR readings in its patent, and the PMS appeared monormorphic. It was held by Jacob J that the defects were neither serious nor fatal.[ ] In a situation where the skilled person set out to carry out the invention and make PMS in accordance to the Synthon patent, the consequence would be what the SKB patent disclosed though they thought they were doing something different. As for the enablement requirement, the problem here was that the Synthon patent used an inappropriate solvent. Jacob J acknowledged and recognized Synthon’s argument here as well, that the skilled reader of the patent would try various solvents if the one indicated in the patent did not do the trick, and within a realistic time would make PMS.[ …show more content…
In deliberating if there has been disclosure, when the patent is construed, the general knowledge of the skilled person in taken into account and the interpretation ceases and the skilled person is no longer in the picture.[ ] In respect to enablement, the skilled person must ensure that the invention works and must be seen to be pleased and willing to carry out several experiments in achieving this. Disclosure of an invention in respect of prior art, as Lord Hoffman sees it, may result in an infringement of the patent if it is carried out. If an infringement occurs, it will not require that the person working on the invention is aware.[ ] Which means that the condition for disclosure can be satisfied even when the creator of the prior art is not aware of the infringement. So was the application for patent by Synthon a disclosure of an invention, which if it is carried our will infringe the Patent of SKB.[